Jump to content

Talk:Hyderabad State/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Princely state of "British India"

Princely states were not considered a part of British India. Please correct.

India under the British Raj (the "Indian Empire") consisted of two types of territory: British India and the Native states or Princely states. In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions:

(4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India. (5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India. 

Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 18
Technically, you are correct. In fact, if you click on the blue link to "British India" in the infobox, it leads you to the British Indian Empire. When the British were still around, "British India" meant the part of India that was under British administration. But in the common usage now, "British India" is used to distinguish it from independent India. I would like to get input from other editors if this needs correction. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The section starting "In 1798, Nizam ʿĀlī Khan" and ending with the mutiny isn't the Raj.

Before 1858, it's dealing with the East India Company. The Raj is what it's replacement - direct British rule - is known as. Ganpati23 (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. As a registered editor, you are perfectly able to do such edits yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Country

Hyderabad was a former country, as well as princely state, and should be included in the intro paragraph. RahulRamchandani (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, you need to provide a reliable source, in fact multiple sources, as counts as a contentious WP:LABEL. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@RahulRamchandani: I am afraid this source[1] is not good enough. The author is unknown and I couldn't find any book reviews for it, despite it being a 700-page work labelled "history". The Evening Standard News said:

The book describes its author, Francis Pike as a "historian" although it's not easy turning up any previous works by the 55-year-old author. Surprisingly, for someone who is presumably concerned with accuracy, the blurb omits Pike's unfortunate involvement with what was one of Asia's largest banks: the Hong Kong-based Peregrine Investment Holdings. This is clearly one of those common lapses of memory and has nothing to do with the fact that Peregrine went spectacularly bust in 1998 with estimated debts of $400 million (Pike had been Chairman of Peregrine India and a director of Pergerine Asset Management from 1993-97).

Did you find any other sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I thought it was a reliable source. But I can still look. But its also common sense, Hyderabad was an independent state, meaning it was a country. RahulRamchandani (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You need to read the article on country before calling it obvious that something is a "country". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: And like I said again, it was a country...RahulRamchandani (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
That is what you say. But you can't call it "obvious". It needs to be attested by multiple reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.ca/books?id=G7xPaJomYsEC&pg=PA40&dq=hyderabad+was+a+country&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifpeO3tanZAhUK1oMKHb3WAD0Q6AEIVTAI#v=onepage&q=hyderabad%20was%20a%20country&f=false Hammad.511234 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't give me random google hits. You need to check the WP:RS criteria and understand what the sources actually say. The first book is that of Francis Pike, which has already been discussed above in this thread. As for the second source, K. v. Krishna Rao, what does it say to show that Hyderabad was a "country"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3 What exactly is wrong with those sources? And the second source mentions it as a state... a synonym. Princely state refers to those native states that had subsidiary alliances with British India, but how about when it did not? Did it just not exist? Hammad.511234 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC) This article is also under the former countries wiki project. Hammad.511234 (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"State" and "country" are not synonyms. Please use the terms that the sources use without adding your WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Pike, Francis (28 February 2011), Empires at War: A Short History of Modern Asia Since World War II, I.B.Tauris, pp. 347–, ISBN 978-0-85773-029-9
  • I don't see any consensus here that Hyderabad be described as a country but it currently is in the article. The sources used are the same as above and don't seem reliable (the first one mentions even old kingdoms of India as "countries", the second one gives no context as to why it was a country but just mentions it as such). Seeing the inconclusive discussion above and the quality of the sources this should be removed for now. Gotitbro (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The Nizam used to call Muslims and the Hindus as his two eyes.

regentspark (talk · contribs), please explain why its not considered, I'm trying to understand... Bhagya2 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Bhagya2:. External links should point to further research that expand on the topic or to material that should be in the article but cannot be included because of copyright reasons. The material you're adding does not fit either of those criteria. Perhaps, assuming it is a reliable source, you could add it - as a reference - in a section on the Nizam's relations with his subjects. But not as an external link. --regentspark (comment) 19:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks , I'll leave it to you here Bhagya2 (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Princely state

@Kautilya3: Princely state only refers to the British period and was not used in the early years of the state. Wouldn't it be better to reflect this in the lead i.e "the state/kingdom was later a princely state during British rule".HaoJungTar (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Mughal successor state" is how I would describe Hyderabad was before it became part of the British empire. The term "kingdom" is not used for it. It was an instance of an empire fragmenting into semi-independent feudal estates. In any case, the term is unsourced, as I have pointed out. We follow WP:V and WP:NPOV in our use of language and do not make up our own. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I have no preference for whether it is termed a successor state, kingdom, sultanate etc. I only think that princely state in the lead should be qualified with a mention that this was its status within the British period only. It's already mentioned in the article that the entity was not a princely state from 1724-1798.HaoJungTar (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
As it was ruled by a Nizam, would Nizamate be appropriate?HaoJungTar (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
HaoJungTar: Almost nobody, nobody in English language readers knows what a "Nizamate" is. It isn't appropriate for the lede. I looked at your references before reverting, and they solely mentioned the term in passing. They certainly don't introduce the Hyderabad state as a nizamate nor make a big deal about it. The relevance of using such an obscure term isn't clear; yes, it applies to Hyderabad State, no, it isn't a proper introduction. Per Kautilya3, "Mughal successor state" is probably closer if you really don't like "princely state". (Which, by the standard you're using for Nizamate, has like 10000x as many passing references to "princely state."). SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"Almost nobody, nobody in English language readers knows what a "Nizamate" is." That's a bold and generalised comment. I'm sure many have not heard of terms such as "khanate" or "khaganate" either. Nevertheless, a territory ruled by a Khanate is known as such. Likewise, a territory controlled by a Nizam would be called a Nizamate. In any case, if you can think of a better term then please add it but leaving princely state in there unqualified is incorrect.HaoJungTar (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@HaoJungTar: You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. You don't get to just declare that princely state is "incorrect" when there are hundreds of sources that do in fact refer to Hyderabad as a princely state. And yes, per my edit summary, your "reference" isn't useful here - nobody is contesting that Hyderabad State can be referred to as a nizamate, but your reference is on a completely different topic and happens to just refer to it as a nizamate in passing. What would be appropriate would be a WP:RS book, journal, chapter of a book, on Hyderabad State specifically that said something like "While commonly referred to as a princely state, this is actually wrong, it should be referred to as a Nizamate because...". We don't just accept passing or trivial mentions on Wikipedia, because with the Internet, it's easy to search through 1 million sources and find the 2 that correspond to whatever crazy view is being proposed. By your own standards of a random Google Book search, https://books.google.com/books?id=Loiq3YrFy40C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hyderabad+%22princely+state%22&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ5cynmpLlAhURWN8KHdGYB7kQ6AEwBHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=%22princely%20state%22&f=false shows Hyderabad State being referred to as a Princely State, if it makes you happy. (I don't actually place much weight on this "reference" at all, but it's still better than your reference, because at least this book is specifically on the topic - and has 0 occurrences of "nizamate", by the way.) This is getting dangerously close to WP:3RR; please back down on this. SnowFire (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Your patronising comments aside, if you were actually familiar with Hyderabad State, you would see that it was a princely state from 1794 onwards. It literally says as much in the infobox. And I never claimed it wasn't a princely state, I merely believe that since the term "princely state" only covers the British period, then that should be reflected in the lead. It literally says as much in the article; princely state Please don't misrepresent me in the future. You seem more keen on entering into an argument as opposed to resolving the issue.HaoJungTar (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
And Nizamate was never a major point of contention for me. Merely an alternative to princely state (which covers the British period only). I have removed it in place of autonomous state.HaoJungTar (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, there is nothing in the term "princely state" that suggests that it is supposed to be under British suzerainty. The British used that term for any state ruled by a prince, which they didn't think qualified to be called a "kingdom". There were certainly "kingdoms", even "empires", that were called so, e.g., Durrani Empire, Sikh Empire, Maratha Empire etc. Even Oudh is occasionally called the "Kingdom of Oudh". I suspect the reason the Nizams never qualified to be "kings" is because they were always dependent on somebody or the other for the sustenance of their power, first the Marathas, then the French and finally the British.
Your edit is confusing things quite a bit because "autonomy" implies being subsidiary. But you don't state what it was subsidiary to. And this supposed "autonomy" covers only part of the period. All said and done, "princely state" is a much better description than any of the alternatives. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed (and it was the Mughals first of all, no?). Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


Raj era sources

@Loveisthebest1: I reverted your Turkoman addition because the source you're using is a Raj era source. The consensus in India articles is that Raj era sources for ethnic identites are not reliable and should not be used. If need to find a recent academic source that supports the Turkoman identity. Please also read WP:BRD. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Whats the problem there are source before raj era in 1819 that says state of hyderabad s ruling dynasty is of turkoman origin and there are source that says the founder is Turkic sunni nobleman. Loveisthebest1 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: Has there been an Request for Comment (RfC) on Raj era sources, such as the ones for WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303#RfC: Fox News, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#Mashable, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, & WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312#RfC: Xinhua News Agency? I ask this for two reasons:
  • It would be good to have in one place a general list of the suspect sources.
  • It would be good to know for what purposes these sources are proscribed.
I, myself, was unable to find an RfC, although I found about a dozen discussions scattered through the archives. If there has been no RfC, would you please open one at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard so we can codify this? I suspect that Raj era sources might be RS for train wrecks & bureaucratic promotions, but prohibited when colonizer or oppressor points-of-view are concerned. I might be stating the obvious to some here, but not everyone, myself included, has a clue of what qualifies for what. Peaceray (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Please you can find also, few source say turkoman origin of the founder/rulers Loveisthebest1 (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Stop hiding truth Loveisthebest1 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Loveisthebest1: Please learn to indent as per WP:THREAD. Also, I suggest losing the snarky commentary. Citations provide currency & purchase here, not opinions. Supply verification from reliable sources & you will find that Wikipedia is not censored.
As for sources, please sift your way through www.google.com/search?&q=Turkoman+Hyderabad+-site%3Awikipedia.org+-wiki. Please note that there are a few reliable sources there & most are not. If you have not done so already, verse yourself at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources content guideline to learn the difference.
Also see scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Turkoman+Hyderabad
Also look at wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hyderabad (native state). This should be okay as per WP:BRITANNICA, although I suppose it could be contested as "Raj era". This is exactly why I want to see an RfC to codify what is or is not acceptable. Peaceray (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping @Peaceray:. Raj era sources were discussed on RSN a while ago (@Sitush: can help point to the correct link. Regardless of all that, references to historical events should use modern academic sources rather than older sources, especially non-academic ones. Historiography is not static, and if there is anything useful to say about a historical event, surely a modern academic source can be found that says just that. I suggest that Loveisthebest1, since they seem to be interested in historical articles, read WP:HISTRS, particularly the easy to follow "nutshell" section. Neither an 1893 "India office and Burma office list" nor the 1911 Britannica satsify the two requirements listed there. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know which source I are allowed to use Loveisthebest1 (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have add new source is it approved? Loveisthebest1 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The Asaf Jah dynasty of Hyderabad state claimed Siqqiqui lineage. So, it would not be correct to label them as "Turkic" Aglrochisat (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but Thats dont make them a siqqiqui or what that is, you use bad sources seems ok for everybudy here, but when l have a source it is not agreed, my last source on Qamuraddin khan is Good Loveisthebest1 (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
If claiming ancestry did not make them as such; them I don't know what else would make them. Aglrochisat (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
There are many smiliar pages on wikipedia, you must have evidence to clarify such claim, if modern historian dont find it then its only claim, everybody can claim somehting to fit in or glorify their past Loveisthebest1 (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyderabad_State/Archive_2&oldid=1250787065"